NOTE: I'm using this OP textbox for Highlights of the whole thread. I moved the OP in with the second post. Maybe it would be better to start a new thread for these highlights, but I'll go with this for now.

Lloyd said: We need to know the intensity and size of photons from all directions, esp. these:1. from Earth's interior upward;2. from Sun to Earth's surface at noon and sunrise/sunset;3. from Moon to Earth's surface at full moon and quarter moon at zenith and just above horizon;4. from solar interior to solar atmosphere;5. from an electric smelting furnace.

Lloyd said: Steven, I'd like to know if you could do a simulation for another MM statement []: "The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field." The statement is from the What is Charge? paper.

Airman said: Direct (center-to-center) photon hits will be the most effective at driving protons and electron apart, but most hits aren't direct, especially against smaller targets, and gravity will bring those particles back toward each other again. Electrons will spend more time closer to protons than the average proton-proton separation. Approaching pole to pole would reduce the average separation distance. I believe that the charge hits per surface area for P-P, P-e, or e-e at the average separation distances would be equal to the size ratio differences.

"MM gave the figure of 35,000 as the number of electron masses in photons recycled by each electron per second (see The Heliospheric Current Sheet http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf "recycling 35,000* times its own mass every second as charge, and the proton is recycling 19 times its own mass"), but that (35,000 electron masses per second) turns out to be the same as 19 proton masses per second, so he's apparently saying that the charge of each is the same. But why would a little electron recycle the same amount of charge as the much bigger proton? The proton's extra spins then wouldn't be adding anything to the electron's emission."

Lloyd said: MM Quotes: --- Contradictionhttp://milesmathis.com/proton3.htmlthe proton creates the bulk of the charge field, by recycling and emitting far more photons than the electron.[LK: This contradicts my previous finding based on MM.]

Nevyn said: I don't use the term orbit in relation to electrons. That is not what they do. They are just stuck in there and while they may be circling around the proton pole, it is not orbiting it.<But the electron orbits the proton's polar axis - LK>

Nevyn said: Miles has stated, not sure if in a paper or a private email to me, that the electron does not emit the same amount of charge as the proton.

Lloyd said: Electron & Proton Charge Emission. Steve, I don't have much time for discussion yet, but MM's material shows that his electron does emit the same amount of charge as his proton does. I showed the figures and sources in the Mathis thread on the TB forum.

Lloyd said: Compare MM & CC. Charles Chandler has a lot of good material that helps a lot to explain a lot of astronomical and geological phenomena and he keeps adding to that.

Nevyn said: I found the neutral electron about a year ago. I call it the nectron.

Airman said: I must say that I have a hard time accepting that an electron, (or even a proton) is the manifestation of a single photon. That the mass of the particle (alpha or higher) "is the sum of the spin vectors" of that photon.I understand that as energy is added, the lightspeed limit causes stacked spins. But I've convinced myself that the stacked spins caused a manifold, scooping photons into the particle. Thus the proton is a collection of approximately 1821 [electrons]. If the proton is recycling photons, how can you say that the proton is just a single photon?Have you looked at electron matter yet?

Nevyn said: That idea of mass being the sum of spin vectors is purely my conjecture. Miles has not said anything along those lines it just occurred to me as I was thinking about how inner spins affect particle energy. I think it makes sense as mass is the resistance to motion and the spin vectors, which point in lots of different directions, would have an effect on the collision with another particle. The more spin levels the more affect it has which is exactly how mass works.

I know it is hard to see why a tiny little photon could cause the results of a proton. Working with my spin app helped me here as I could see how the photon moved with many spin levels.

Nevyn said: On the one hand you can think of a proton as being both its actual photon and its charge field.

Initially I had the idea that it would be colliding nearly constantly because that is a lot of charge to move around. But now I think that if it was that dense then the proton would soon lose its spin because every collision must affect it. But then again, Miles has stated that dense charge fields can add spin levels because of the increased collision rate.

I was writing a paper about the neutral electron (nectron) at the time where I was talking about the nectron allowing what I called micro-atoms to be built (possibly, it is a bit of a stretch).

Airman said: “Shoulders then shows that electrons travel easily together, contradicting what we are taught about repulsing charges. He provides data proving that although electrons have some repulsion, they have nothing like a repulsion of -1. I have shown that this is because electrons have a smaller charge profile than the proton. We do not have equal and opposite charges, and never have. The mainstream's own experiments and equations have long indicated the electron has a charge of 1/1821 that of the proton, but as with the charge field itself, that data is ignored to suit old standing theories.”

“Furthermore, I have shown that it is the electrons' real spins and charge emissions through those spins that are keeping them apart, just as fans would keep one another apart. But in some cases, electrons can huddle even closer, stacking like the protons stack in the nucleus, pole to equator. To get there, they have to be driven by a non-linear charge field, which is rare. But this is the explanation of some quantum particles, such as the tau neutrino. The neutrino is not an indivisible particle: it is four x-spinning electrons.”

“Curiously, the critical number density of the substructure matches Avogadro’s number. To a first approximation, the parts within are spaced the same as if they were in an atomic lattice.”

Nevyn said: Interesting thought about galactic filaments. I had assumed they were just charge photons (possibly even smaller than the normal IR charge) but Ken was working with extreme vacuums and that would match the environment of a charge filament.

Nevyn said: I spent a lot of time playing with this app and different spin speed ratios before I found what I believe is the actual spin ratio (relative spin speed of 1 spin level to another, adjacent, spin level).

Nevyn said: The way I see it is that the B-Photon gains an axial spin until its tangential velocity reaches c. At this point it can not gain anymore spin on that level. If another particles hits the B-Photon it needs to use that energy somehow so it gains another spin level which is about a point on the surface of that B-Photon. So now we have an X spin. The colliding particle would need to hit the B-Photon in a certain area (of that B-Photons surface) to impart the right force in order to cause the new spin level. If the B-Photon had an axial spin about the Y axis, then the incoming particle would need to be moving in the direction of the XZ plane of the B-Photon and hit it somewhere near the poles on the Y axis OR it is moving in the Y axis direction and hits the B-Photon somewhere on the edge in the XZ plane. This causes the B-Photon to spin about that point of collision. The main point is that the incoming force is perpendicular to the spin.

Any spin above the first X spin is NOT about a point on the surface of the B-Photon. <The Y spin is a spin around a point on the X spin photon surface - LK>

Nevyn said: I have thought about trying to simulate the collision to form new spin levels but there is no clear theory in this area.

Nevyn said: I don't see it quite that way in the case of alphas. The through-charge holes on the protons line up and the protons are held together by the charge flowing through both of them (the through-charge, not equatorial). The neutrons are not part of that charge path. They are further out from this central region and take charge (through their own central holes) from the equatorial charge of the protons, if at all.

Curved Photon Paths I said: In the atom, MM has 2 neutrons between 2 protons and the charge stream going through the poles of one proton, then through the poles of both neutrons side-by-side, then through the pole of the other proton. How could the charge stream do that: make an angle, instead of a straight line?

Nevyn replied: I do remember Miles stating something like what you say but I can't remember the specifics. If you can tell me the paper it was stated in I will re-read it

It's in his Deuterium paper at http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf - It's the 3rd image, which is helium, as well as the last image in the paper at the bottom.

He didn't use the words "get stuck", but he said the charge mostly circulates within the atom. I believe it was in his paper on the Atmosphere.

Airman said: Can a B-photon's linear velocity alone be less than c?

Nevyn said: a B-Photon has an inherent property of spinning at c. This is just the axial spin, no stacked spins but what that does is provide a reason for the stacked spins. That axial spin changes all interactions with other entities. We are no longer talking about the sorts of collisions that we learnt in school.

It took 3 steps to get stacked spins: create a sphere; make it move at c; make it spin at c. Let's have a close look at what just happened. We created a sphere which has 2 properties: a center and a radius. We took both of those properties and made them move at c (if we think of a single radius vector and rotate the end of that vector).

That was pretty simple and very affective but you know what? I can take another step and make everything. There is only 1 motion left that I can do to this sphere. I can make its radius move (you don't know how bad I want to say "at c" but I can't, it seems too large, maybe 1/c). No, I don't mean add stacked spins, I mean extend it, expand it.

Nevyn said: Basically, my unscientific theory has 3 forces at the fundamental level: The force of constant motion; The force of constant rotation; The force of constant expansion. Stacked spins make use of the force of constant motion and the force of constant rotation. Given those 2 forces acting on the B-Photon it does what it can to use the energy it has. If it can't move any faster and it can't slow down so it has to spin.

You are talking about pressure [on photons] but the only thing able to apply pressure at this level is other photons. Other photons that are the same size as your photons.

[Re Neutral Atoms] I am a little skeptical of this idea of split charge paths holding things together myself. Miles thinks he needs it for some reason

I think the charge is better spent by moving it to the outside of the atom. That makes the atom stronger because it increases its charge field which protects it from other atoms and particles. This allows the atom to remain a stable structure. Charge that stays inside an atom is not being used for protection because it is always moving back inside rather than to the outside where the enemies are. However, charge directed inside is being used to keep the structure in place so it is not wasted.

Nevyn said: At the photon level there is no charge field. The photons are the charge field. Hypothesizing a sub-level beneath the photons just means you have to explain them. While I won't say that sub-level does not exist, it is not needed and there is no evidence for it. If you have some mechanism that could explain the sub-photons, then why not just use it on the photons?

Lloyd said: I think photons would tend to gain and lose stacked spins mostly within planets and stars. Don't you agree? When a photon or particle reaches the surface, esp. on a star, it should remain as it is for a long time. Right? On a planet the photon or particle may remain the same once it leaves the Moho layer. Or at least that's a vague idea.

Nevyn said: If the charge is leaving at the equator, then less will come in from the equatorial region and so more (as a percentage) is coming in from the poles.

Lloyd said: MM: Molecules Don't Radiate Many Photons MM said:Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere. This is why the ionosphere exists above the non-ionosphere. The charge field of the Earth both seeds and limits the ionosphere.

Late AdditionHeat and the Curie temp http://milesmathis.com/heat.html But not all matter recycles in the same way, or in the same amount. All matter emits photons, and that is true of both electrons and protons. It does not matter what the "charge" of the particle is (except for neutrons and other neutral particles, which trap the charge field, negating it). But, although all matter emits charge, some matter emits a lot more. The proton emits a lot more than the electron, for example, simply due to size. Atoms and molecules can also trap or block parts of the charge field, acting neutral or partially neutral. What do I mean by that? Let's look at the "neutrality" of molecules and atoms more closely. Are they really neutral or uncharged? No. We know that ions are charged particles, which, according to my theory, means they are recycling the charge field directly: they are taking it in and emitting it, with little or no blockage. So they can transfer their heat or motion to other particles via the charge photons. The charge photons carry energy across space from one particle to the other. But in more complex groups like atoms and molecules, the charge field is not recycled in this way. The charge photons are captured by spins, but then they knock about internally, blocked by electrons or closely neighboring baryons. The charge field causes internal motion or heat or energy, but it is not re-emitted directly. It is either trapped, like with a neutron, going back on itself and creating zero energy pockets, or it is spit out in directionalized streams, between particles. What this means is that atoms and molecules ARE charged by the field, but they are mostly internally charged. By this I mean they cannot transmit this charge energy by sending out photons, since the photons are blocked. They can transmit this energy only by touch: by collision. You don't have to collide with an ion to feel its energy, since the ion can transmit its energy via the charge photons it is emitting. But you do have to collide with a molecule or an atom to feel its heat or charge.

the charge strength of protons and electrons." I don't really know that he changed his statement on that. Can you quote where he says how much charge electrons emit?

I agree that we can describe the photon in terms of forward velocity, spin, and < cherry >expansion (not at c, but at the photon's surface acceleration due to gravity. We can probably figure that out, I think Miles calculated the proton surface expansion). I just don't see how those motions can result in a single photon which travels in loops. I can see groups of 'unbalanced' photons with forward velocity well below light speed forming stacked spins, but I must find an answer to you describing how initial groups can remain together at lightspeed spin. Maybe 'slower' photons do clump together more than we believe. Your spins describe envelopes - the complex interior and exterior surfaces of the photon particle - until it is involved in a significant collision.

Nevyn said: the relative spin speeds. You need to incorporate that in order to see the actual motion of the B-Photon. In order to find these spin speeds I took Miles' angular velocity equation and plugged in a tangential velocity of c for all spin levels and used a doubling radius to get these values: [see http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t3p45-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models#148].

doubling radius. Don't be fooled by the increasing values for w. That value is the velocity as traveled on the circumference (not radians/s) and I have followed that path and ended up back at the same ratio values as above. Think of it this way: if all spin levels have the same tangential velocity then a greater radius will mean more distance to travel which means it takes more time to complete a rotation.

[Lloyd's view] breaks the rules of stacked spins. This highlights < cherry >a solution to a common problem. If you are disagreeing with someone then try to go to a deeper level in order to see where you differ or agree and work from there.

Nevyn said: While that second image is better, it still gives the impression that the X spin is very fast compared to the Y spin. That is, you have drawn a complete torus and have shown that to be spinning about the Y axis. Now, I don't see a better way to diagram it in a single image, but it is misleading.

It is the Y spin that is a problem because the X spin is only spinning 1.414 times faster than the Y spin. This means the Y spin has changed the motion of the X spin so you no longer have that nice torus that only an X spin would produce. If the X spin was, say, 100 times faster than the Y spin then you would have the torus from the X spin spinning about the Y axis and it would look something like what you have diagrammed. That is because the X spin has time to complete a rotation (or many rotations) before the Y spin can change its trajectory.

Eventually, as I was trying to understand Miles paper on Angular Momentum, I stumbled upon the correct spin speeds which I outlined in my post above.

I can animate a collision but it will just be my way of seeing that collision. There is no way to simulate it.

My way of thinking about it is to have 3 forces acting on every B-Photon. Note that my forces ONLY affect the B-Photon and are not about interactions between B-Photons (but they can affect those interactions).

I would ask myself questions like "Why do the B-Photons spin?" and one day I realised that I was taking straight line motion as a given. Do I really know that straight line motion is normal and spin is esoteric? No, I don't. We all tend to think that what we experience is the norm but what if it wasn't? What if spin is the normal motion at the photon level? What if straight line motion only happens because it is not possible to add another spin level? Try thinking about it from that direction. Take spin as the given and then try to explain straight line motion. You end up at the same place but with reversed roles. If everything spins, why would anything move in straight lines? We CHOOSE to look at it the other way because straight line motion is normal to us.

Airman said: expanding earth theory. The theory can be explained by Miles' charge field recycling. The current period of slow creation of Earth's matter, resulting in an increase of 6 inches of diameter a year (and growing exponentially) is explained by an imbalance in Earth's recycling Charge Field. There are more incoming photons than there are emitted photons. There may be a critical density of photons, above which, matter will grow. If the density of recycling photons in our corner of the galaxy were too low, the Earth would emit more photons than it received, and so the Earth would begin shrinking. The critical charge field density could be related to the amount of time photons are trapped in neutrons and other neutral matter.*

Aug 3 at 11:42 PMHi Lloyd, I have registered on the forum but can't post for 7 days so here is what I had typed out,please post it for me:

Hi Guys, I have some images and videos of a lot of the elements Mathis has described. You may have seen some of these in Miles papers.

The application I have built to model atoms and molecules allows me to show them in different ways. I generally use a view that looks like Miles drawings but with all protons, neutrons and electrons. However, I added the ability to show the charge being emitted by each proton. I can turn this on and off and I can also turn on/off the normal discs used so you can see the model in any 1 of 3 ways which I call 'disc', 'disc-charge' and 'charge'.

I find it useful to view all 3 at different times, depending on what I am thinking about. Some of the larger molecules I have built look amazing with just the charge view.

Note that the colors used are for reference only. They DO NOT signify the number of protons since I model ALL protons. I only use the color to remind me of what sized alpha it is.

Also, the electrons are not really in the right spot or behaving in the right manner. I started this application a few years ago and both mine and Miles understanding of all this has grown since then. However, they are close to the proton poles at least and are close enough to their correct locations for now. <:cherry: > I am usually thinking about protons and neutrons rather than electrons since they really have very little input to nuclear structure or interactions. <Doubt: See MM quotes re: electrons block photon emissions as in this post: http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t3p30-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models#128 - LK>

Would it be possible to show:1. the charge field entering a proton and leaving the proton?2. the electron (with its charge field) flowing toward the proton and getting captured and then orbiting the axis of the proton?3. the charge field entering and leaving the electron?4. the orientation of the electron with respect to the proton's orientation?

Protons apparently tend to align either parallel to each other, as in alphas, or perpendicularly above the poles of other protons. How do you suppose electrons align above proton poles while they orbit the poles?

It looks like he is on the right track IMHO and thanks for the downloads. Nicely done! (BTW, Steve can post but can't include links in his posts for a few days...crazy I know.)

I was looking around at 3-D engines for games. I like Gary's Mod but it might require a lot of programming but has a fairly realistic physics engine embedded. Perhaps we can leverage an existing engine for MM? Might be better to create objects with an engine rather than stand alone 3DsMax or other standalone 3D engines? Just a thought.

based on a well known and customizable engine... something like UnityMol for MM:

sourceforge.net/projects/unitymol/?source=directory\

Description

Implementation of a visualization prototype for molecular structures and networks using the Unity3D game engine. Implementation of numerous graphical methods as spheres, particle systems, bond, etc.. as well as our recent HyperBalls methodology (see: www.hyperballs.sf.net).

Nuclei surely don't align with the charge field in solid form. And they are surely restricted in movement in liquid form as well. I believe liquids, at least water, clump into clusters of atoms or molecules, which are similar to solids, but in 2 dimensions instead of 3. I suppose MM may have discussed this to some extent.

I never do anything right the first time, it's a curse. Cr-6 straightened me out in his 08/04 21:06 msg above.

I agree with everything you said in "Nuclei surely don't align ... extent" except maybe in very strong aligned charge fields, as in matter birthing zones. I meant to say, do electrons, protons and neutrons align with the ambient charge field? Solid matter creates its own very local ambiance, and with a little additional energy, perhaps sufficient for a slow addition of new atoms to solids, and certainly new atoms to liquids.

That's something we need to find. Right? < >We need to know the intensity and size of photons from all directions, esp. these:1. from Earth's interior upward;2. from Sun to Earth's surface at noon and sunrise/sunset;3. from Moon to Earth's surface at full moon and quarter moon at zenith and just above horizon;4. from solar interior to solar atmosphere;5. from an electric smelting furnace.

I started working on similar ideas on the TB forum thread MM & Charge Field.

18 May 2014 2:22 PMSteven, [] < >I'd like to know if you could do a simulation for another MM statement. The statement is: "The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field." The statement is from the What is Charge? paper. I'm not sure if the quote is exact. I previously thought the reasoning was correct, but after thinking about it more, it seems to me that emission would repel small objects much farther than large objects, so small ones may have just as much difficulty getting close to the emitter as would large objects.

Do you think the statement would be easy enough to simulate? I assume you'd need the mass and radius of electrons, protons and photons and the rate of emission by protons, which MM says is 19 times the mass of the proton per second. If you're interested in doing the simulation, I'm willing to help by looking up MM's calculated quantities for the radii and masses, if you don't already have that info at hand.

Lloyd,< >Did you leave out gravity? I assume the photons are all the same size. Direct (center-to-center) photon hits will be the most effective at driving protons and electron apart, but most hits aren't direct, especially against smaller targets, and gravity will bring those particles back toward each other again. Electrons will spend more time closer to protons than the average proton-proton separation. Approaching pole to pole would reduce the average separation distance. I believe that the charge hits per surface area for P-P, P-e, or e-e at the average separation distances would be equal to the size ratio differences.

I agree that it would be a simple and effective demonstration, though complicated by adding gravity and spin.

I hope you don't mind, I'm forcing myself to be more assertive than my normal comfort level.

Assertiveness is essential. People's ideas get left unexpressed if they don't assert them.

MM's original idea of gravity being matter expansion and space expansion is ridiculous, as I explained on my TB forum thread, Lloyd Blog, I think. His later idea of universal spin as the explanation of gravity is much more plausible, but I have another idea, which is that gravity may be the return force after charge emission [kind of like bouncing off of a wall]. So I'm not sure how to account for gravity in the matter of electron-proton "attraction". Do you have ideas how to account for it, other than via "expansion".

Why would you assume that the photons would be all the same size? The Sun emits photons of all sizes. Aren't all the photons from the Sun emitted by protons, neutrons, electrons and antiparticles?

I'll reread your post a few times to see if I understand most of what you're saying. And I'm thinking of making a diagram myself.

It really doesn't matter what causes gravity. The behaviour of Gravitational attraction is mathematically equivalent to expanding matter. It is therefore easy to model by scale renormalization after every expansion, much easier than recalculating newton's grav force eqn and factoring in inertia, velocity, etc. at every itteration.

The sun emits photons of all sizes (IR-UV) because of the tremendous energies available. The model will begin much more simply, with a much smaller energy bandwidth, logically beginning at IR, (UV would come later).

The model might begin as emission only for simplicity's sake, but remember that that 19x mass is always present, and absorbtion will eventually need to be incorporated. There is always an ambient field present, at various energy bandwidths corresponding to the ambient field sources.

Spin must be included. We should find that the P-P, P-e, etc. separation distances will always be associated with orbits, given an imbalanced left/right ambient charge field. The orbits will help stabilize the separation distances.

In two previous papers I questioned the theory of electron breakup into spinons, holons, and orbitons. In the second paper I did a close analysis of the Nature letter of Schlappa et al., showing many pushes. Here I will show how to read the data correctly.

We start with a diagram of the molecular nuclei, something that has not been done before me. To learn my method of nuclear construction, you will have to consult my paper nuclear.pdf and subsequent papers.

< >"MM gave the figure of 35,000 as the number of electron masses in photons recycled by each electron per second (see The Heliospheric Current Sheet http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf "recycling 35,000* times its own mass every second as charge, and the proton is recycling 19 times its own mass"), but that (35,000 electron masses per second) turns out to be the same as 19 proton masses per second, so he's apparently saying that the charge of each is the same. But why would a little electron recycle the same amount of charge as the much bigger proton? The proton's extra spins then wouldn't be adding anything to the electron's emission."

--- Comment. Note that electrons, being much smaller than protons, may emit smaller photons. It would be good to know the sizes of the particles' polar holes. That should tell us the maximum size of photons recycled by each. Right? What are MM's estimates of the diameters of the particles? I think the polar holes should be from about 10% to 50% of the diameters. Right?

--- Contradictionhttp://milesmathis.com/proton3.htmlthe proton creates the bulk of the charge field, by recycling and emitting far more photons than the electron.[LK: This contradicts my previous finding based on MM.]

--- Electron & Proton Radiihttp://milesmathis.com/magneton.htmlthe radius of the electron proper is: re = 1.122 x 10^-17m - But the x-spin radius, 2.244 x 10^-17m, must be the effective border of the electronwe get the number 4.09 x 10^-14m for the proton radius

--- Photon Mass & Radiushttp://milesmathis.com/photon.htmlmass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kgthe radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m7 × 10^-17eV is equal to 1.25 × 10^-36kg, and I just found a mass for the photon of 2.77 × 10^-37kg

< >Different Simulation [Electrons & protons approaching protons]18 May 2014 2:22 PMLloyd email to Steven Smith[] I'd like to know if you could do a simulation for another MM statement. The statement is: "The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field." The statement is from the What is Charge? paper. [] I previously thought the reasoning was correct, but after thinking about it more, it seems to me that emission would repel small objects much farther than large objects, so small ones may have just as much difficulty getting close to the emitter as would large objects. Do you think the statement would be easy enough to simulate? I assume you'd need the mass and radius of electrons, protons and photons and the rate of emission by protons, which MM says is 19 times the mass of the proton per second. If you're interested in doing the simulation, I'm willing to help by looking up MM's calculated quantities for the radii and masses, if you don't already have that info at hand.

Hi Guys, I've done some work on my nuclear models and created a website for them based on the Periodic Table. I have modeled up to Radon and I am happy with most of them, although I am sure there will be some changes. Things can get difficult when dealing with over 150 protons and neutrons.

Would it be possible to show:1. the charge field entering a proton and leaving the proton?2. the electron (with its charge field) flowing toward the proton and getting captured and then orbiting the axis of the proton?3. the charge field entering and leaving the electron?4. the orientation of the electron with respect to the proton's orientation?

Protons apparently tend to align either parallel to each other, as in alphas, or perpendicularly above the poles of other protons. How do you suppose electrons align above proton poles while they orbit the poles?

Hi Lloyd, What I have built so far is just a modeller. It is just a view of the structure. There are no rules or behavior, no collisions, just objects placed where I want them. I built it a few years ago to see the complete atom and be able to compare sizes of different elements. I later added some effects like the charge emission but this is just an effect and it only mimics what I think the charge should do.

I have always wanted to build a simulator using Miles ideas but it is a big task and I needed to start small and work my way up. I started with the photon spin app you may have seen on the Thunderbolts forum and then when Miles started to tackle nuclear modeling, I wrote this app to see the structures. A few months ago I wrote a simulator for Lloyd to demonstrate the behavior of particles in a charge field. That has helped me see ways I can simulate other things.

I could write an app to show what you want but it would be fake. I want the same app as you but it must use first principles before I can call it a simulator. The charge emission app I wrote only needed collision detection for the task it was intended for, but the actual charge emission was just generated. There was no ambient field or input charge. I just programmed an emitter that generated charge in the places Miles has said it does. That was fine for that app because we just wanted to know what the other particles in the field of the emitter were doing. The actual emitter itself was almost inconsequential. Ultimately though, I want a complete spin based 3D engine that only understands photons. Everything else should flow from that starting point.

Regarding particle orientation, I think any particle will orientate itself with respect to the charge field it is in. This is just a basic outcome of least resistance. A proton, neutron or electron has a hole through its center (on a certain axis). This hole is caused by the spinning photon that forms that particle which does not go into that central region on that axis. I can provide images showing these holes if you like. When the axis of that hole is in the same direction as the charge field, there is less resistance by the particle to that field.

Think of a log in a stream. If the log is orientated across the stream then it is hit by more water than if it is oriented with the direction of flow. Now replace that log with a straw. When the straw is oriented with the stream, it allows most of the water to pass right through it. There is very little force imparted to the straw. But if that straw was oriented across the stream, it would feel the same force as the original log in the same orientation.

This applies to alphas, atoms and molecules as well. They can take charge from certain directions which means they do not resist being in that orientation with respect to the charge field. If something does resist the charge field, then it will most likely turn because it keeps getting hit by that charge field.

Protons do not naturally align pole to equator. In a normal field they will just push each other away. However, given a huge charge field, which may or may not be directional, the pressure can force them into this relationship. Once there, they can make use of it but it is not something they would normally seek out.

< > I don't use the term orbit in relation to electrons. That is not what they do. They are just stuck in there and while they may be circling around the proton pole, it is not orbiting it. <But the electron orbits the proton's polar axis - LK> When you see an eddy in a stream with a leaf stuck in there, we don't say the leaf is orbiting anything and the electron is the same thing. I know that sounds a bit strict but I think it helps to use the correct terminology to remove confusion.

Given that though, what would the electron align to? I think it will try to align to the protons through charge, not its equatorial emission. However, as it is being pushed around by both the through charge and the emission, it will get jostled around so much that it probably doesn't align to anything most of the time. The electron in this position can actually hit the proton itself. Not just its charge but the actual photon that forms the proton. The protons photon (say that 10 times while drunk) has a lot of stacked spins and will violently push that electron back out which would disorient the electron even more than the charge.

Last edited by Nevyn on Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 am; edited 1 time in total

Steve, Very nice. I saw one last weekend as MM linked to it in his update to "How the Elements are Built", congratulations!

Do you know if free nucleon spins align with respect to the ambient charge field (dual, left-right)? I don't see how they can all align, and I suppose gravity cannot affect spins.

Lloyd, Thanks for setting things up. You are clearly a gentleman and scholar, like Basil.

Airman

Hi Airman, I'm not sure I know what you mean by free nucleon. A nucleon is part of the atom and is not free as it is tightly bound to the rest of it so I will assume you mean the atom itself. Yes, the atom can align to the ambient field but will not always. It requires a certain strength before the atom will move in response to that charge field or maybe given enough time it would align to any field but I will assume we are talking about a quick alignment.

As I posted above in response to Lloyd, the atom can take in charge from certain directions with respect to the atom itself. If it finds itself in alignment (by chance or collision) such that the charge field can flow through the atom cleanly, it would tend to stay in that orientation purely because it resists getting out of that alignment. It is easier to stay where it is and is also beneficial to the atom since it will have more charge to play with.

I sometimes talk like atoms or particles have desire or intent but they don't, I just like the way it sounds. They just do what they do because they have to. There is no choice it is just the easiest thing for them to do. I find that to be a good working principle in physics and programming: find what is the easiest thing to do. Although, like most programmers, I usually end up with complicated things anyway.

Jun 02, 2014 8:28 pm..."MM gave the figure of 35,000 as the number of electron masses in photons recycled by each electron per second, but that turns out to be the same as 19 proton masses per second, so he's apparently saying that the charge of each is the same. But why would a little electron recycle the same amount of charge as the much bigger proton? The proton's extra spins then wouldn't be adding anything to the electron's emission."

--- Comment. Note that electrons, being much smaller than protons, may emit smaller photons. It would be good to know the sizes of the particles' polar holes. That should tell us the maximum size of photons recycled by each. Right? What are MM's estimates of the diameters of the particles? I think the polar holes should be from about 10% to 50% of the diameters. Right?

Hi Cr6,< > Miles has stated, not sure if in a paper or a private email to me, that the electron does not emit the same amount of charge as the proton. In one of his early papers on this he did say that if the electron did emit the same then blah blah but he has at least hinted in many papers that they do not. He often uses that fact against the mainstream.

I don't think protons and electrons emit different sized photons. They just emit what they are given by the ambient field and this will mostly be IR photons. I imagine there is some limit to the size of charge that a given particle can emit though. Above this limit the charge will alter the particle itself, either augmenting or suppressing its spin. This can cause particles to change form. For example, an electron hit with 3 well placed collisions can become a proton or neutron. The charge photons and the particle would need to be pretty close in size for this to happen though. Maybe so close that it doesn't happen like this at all.

< >Electron & Proton Charge Emission. Steve, I don't have much time for discussion yet, but MM's material shows that his electron does emit the same amount of charge as his proton does. I showed the figures and sources in the Mathis thread on the TB forum.

Since the electron is supposed to be something like a thousand times smaller than the proton, according to MM, it's reasonable to suppose that the photons it emits would have to be much smaller too.

Neutral Electron? I realized recently that, if the proton has a near twin, the neutron, with its z-spin reversed, it seems the electron should have such a neutral near twin, too, due to z-spin reversal. MM had a list of the possible arrangements of all the spins, so that should show if such a neutral electron should exist.

MM Questions. I have quite a few questions about the charge field and how it's channeled through atoms and particles etc, but I don't have time to discuss them now. I had listed a number of questions on Charles Chandler's website, which I should move to this forum some day.

True Simulation. Steve, I suspect that we all agree that the ultimate actual simulations need to be based on facts and known formulas, rather than just modeling. So I think you'll find you're supported entirely for the effort to do that.

Last edited by LloydK on Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:43 am; edited 1 time in total

LloydK wrote:Electron & Proton Charge Emission.Neutral Electron? I realized recently that, if the proton has a near twin, the neutron, with its z-spin reversed, it seems the electron should have such a neutral near twin, too, due to z-spin reversal. MM had a list of the possible arrangements of all the spins, so that should show if such a neutral electron should exist.

< > I found the neutral electron about a year ago. I call it the nectron. I'm glad someone else realised this too. Once I found the correct spin ratios for my photon spin application, I discovered that there are only a few types of particle for a given spin level. When a particle has a top level Z spin there are only 2 forms it will take. One of them has a large central hole (in 1 axis) and the other has a smaller hole. This led me to the nectron. You can have a look at these here http://www.nevyn.t15.org/science/mathis/particles/root2/overview.html . In that page I do mention a reason why the nectron may not be neutral so have a look and we can discuss when you have time.

LloydK wrote:Electron & Proton Charge Emission.Since the electron is supposed to be something like a thousand times smaller than the proton, according to MM, it's reasonable to suppose that the photons it emits would have to be much smaller too.

I don't think the particle size has anything to do with the charge it emits. You must remember that the real particle (the B-Photon that forms the proton or electron) is the same size for each. It is only the number of spin levels that differ. This means that at the point of collision, we have equal sized B-Photons colliding.

The stacked spins do change the collision (I believe the stacked spins actually are the mass of the particle or more precisely mass is the sum of the spin vectors (tangential velocity of each spin level)) but as I mentioned in a previous post, this affects the required size of charge photons that could alter the particle, not the size of charge that could be redirected by the particle.

So in a way, yes, a proton could emit charge that is larger than what an electron could emit because it has more power or mass but this does not mean the proton MUST emit ONLY that sized charge. In the end, both of them can only emit what they encounter so the ambient field determines their emission. Since the ambient field is usually IR photons, that is what they will both emit.

LloydK wrote:Electron & Proton Charge Emission.True Simulation. Steve, I suspect that we all agree that the ultimate actual simulations need to be based on facts and known formulas, rather than just modeling. So I think you'll find you're supported entirely for the effort to do that.

Yeah, I thought so too but I just want to be clear with how I see things. Because I deal with abstract concepts all the time in my profession, I see them quite easily. That is why I was not satisfied with mainstream physics and why I am satisfied with Miles work. But others don't always see it (even other programmers) so I apologize if I sound condescending at times, it is a by product of trying to be as straight forward as possible while avoiding confusion.

I am happy to build apps that fake some parts, as I did with the charge emission model for you, but I have to be very clear of what is fake and what is real and the real parts must apply to what is being studied at the time. Any inconsequential parts can be faked as long as they provide the same outcome as if they were not fake.

I just wanted to say that I want the same type of application and have spent close to 10 years thinking about it and how to create it and I now have completed some of the stepping stones towards it but it still seems a bit elusive to me at the moment. To be honest, I get bogged down thinking about processing power most of the time. Particle simulations require extreme power or in the absence of power, extreme time to run. I don't have access to super-computers like the mainstream does so I have to make do with my trusty little PC. This leads me to thinking about efficiency before I really should be. Sometimes you just need to get in there, get dirty and see where it leads before you can think about how to make it run faster. That is how I have built these other applications and it has worked quite well so far so I just need to get motivated and find some time to spend on it.

Last edited by Nevyn on Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hi Steve, I tried linking to your site a few times, no joy, repeated timeouts, even when shortening it to http://www.nevyn.netai.net.I look forward to re-reading your descriptions above. I modeled e-m wave interferences for runway glideslopes using e^+/-j(pi)omega, and Fourier Transforms for synthetic aperture radar twenty-five years ago in Pascal, and always wanted to get into 3-d particle modeling, but I didn't get to pick my assignments and didn't keep up with s/w languages and compilers. Oh well.< >I must say that I have a hard time accepting that an electron, (or even a proton) is the manifestation of a single photon. That the mass of the particle (alpha or higher) "is the sum of the spin vectors" of that photon. < >I understand that as energy is added, the lightspeed limit causes stacked spins. But I've convinced myself that the stacked spins caused a manifold, scooping photons into the particle. Thus the proton is a collection of approximately 1821 photons. If the proton is recycling photons, how can you say that the proton is just a single photon?Have you looked at electron matter yet?Thanks for giving my faith a good kick.Airman

Hi Airman, I'm not sure why the site wouldn't work for you. I have been able to access it from where I am (Australia) but I'm not sure where the servers are located, I was assuming in the US. The only thing I can think of is if I was updating files as you were trying to access them it might cause problems but that would be a short term problem that a retry a few minutes later would fix. It could just be the domain name has not propagated to your domain name server yet. That can take up to 24 hours. Try again and let me know what happens.

I have just added a redirect at the root level so using just the domain name with no path will get you to an index page I am setting up. This has links to the other pages on the site.

It would be good if everyone told me if they can or can not access the site so I can determine if it is a single issue or more pandemic.

It sounds like you are fairly confident with mathematics, that may come in handy at some point. I would say I am good at math compared to the general public and bad compared to a mathematician. That's why I'm a software developer, we live in between those worlds.

It's not too late to start programming again! There may be a few new concepts you will need to get your head around but the basics are still the same. If you can understand variables, looping structures and procedures/functions/methods then the hard part is done. Most of it is just syntax for the language you are using. Don't be scared of Object Orientation either, it is just a different perspective of the same thing.

I can help with things you don't understand and google is always your friend. I taught myself nearly everything I know. The only thing you need is the desire to learn and if you didn't have that you probably wouldn't be at this forum. I do most of my work in Java but have recently gone back to working in C so that I can take advantage of graphics processors. Although I even do that in Java and just use the C code for the GPU programming. Just in case you can't tell, I love Java (but hate coffee).

< > That idea of mass being the sum of spin vectors is purely my conjecture. Miles has not said anything along those lines it just occurred to me as I was thinking about how inner spins affect particle energy. I think it makes sense as mass is the resistance to motion and the spin vectors, which point in lots of different directions, would have an effect on the collision with another particle. The more spin levels the more affect it has which is exactly how mass works.

< > I know it is hard to see why a tiny little photon could cause the results of a proton. Working with my spin app helped me here as I could see how the photon moved with many spin levels. I could imagine the charge field around it being pushed around by the complex motions of the photon. I could see areas that the photon would keep coming back to and others where it didn't. I could see where it was fast or slow, curving tightly or a more graceful arc. All this together helped me to see how a tiny little photon could cause major affects in a relatively large volume of space. I hope to pass on that information through my new site but the true learning (and the fun) is in playing with the spin app to get a real good idea of how stacked spin work.